Jones v. U.S. Postal Service

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedJuly 18, 2024
Docket4:23-cv-10158
StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. U.S. Postal Service (Jones v. U.S. Postal Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. U.S. Postal Service, (E.D. Mich. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION VANESSA ANN JONES, Case No. 23-10158 Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. United States DistrictJudge U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., David R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. ___________________________ / OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JUNE 25, 2024 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 48) This case is before the court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s June 25, 2024 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 48). Currently pending are two motions to dismiss: one brought by Defendant Widgeon (ECF No. 16), and one

brought by the USPS Defendants (ECF No. 24). Magistrate Judge Grand recommends Defendant Widgeon’s motion to dismiss be granted and the USPS Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied without prejudice in

part. Id., PageID.252. The court is fully advised in thepremises and has reviewed the record and the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections. “[T]he failure to

object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The court nevertheless agrees with Magistrate Judge Grand’s recommended disposition.

The court further agrees that it is in the interest of justice to give Plaintiff a limited opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the presentdeficiencies

as to her employment discrimination claim. (ECF No. 48, PageID.261). Therefore, the court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48). Defendant Widgeon’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.

16) is GRANTED; the USPS Defendants’motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim only and is GRANTED as to all other claims. Plaintiff has 30 days from the filing of this Order

to file an amended complaint to cure any deficiencies as to her employment discrimination claim.

SO ORDERED. Date: July 18, 2024 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States DistrictJudge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jones v. U.S. Postal Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-us-postal-service-mied-2024.